Cargando…

Alarm Settings of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems and Associations to Glucose Outcomes in Type 1 Diabetes

CONTEXT: Little evidence exists regarding the positive and negative impacts of continuous glucose monitor system (CGM) alarm settings for diabetes control in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the associations between CGM alarm settings and glucose outcomes. DESIGN AND SETTING:...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lin, Yu Kuei, Groat, Danielle, Chan, Owen, Hung, Man, Sharma, Anu, Varner, Michael W, Gouripeddi, Ramkiran, Facelli, Julio C, Fisher, Simon J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6977942/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31993548
http://dx.doi.org/10.1210/jendso/bvz005
Descripción
Sumario:CONTEXT: Little evidence exists regarding the positive and negative impacts of continuous glucose monitor system (CGM) alarm settings for diabetes control in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the associations between CGM alarm settings and glucose outcomes. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional observational study in a single academic institution. PATIENTS AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: CGM alarm settings and 2-week CGM glucose information were collected from 95 T1D patients with > 3 months of CGM use and ≥ 86% active usage time. The associations between CGM alarm settings and glucose outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Higher glucose thresholds for hypoglycemia alarms (ie, ≥ 73 mg/dL vs < 73 mg/dL) were related to 51% and 65% less time with glucose < 70 and < 54 mg/dL, respectively (P = 0.005; P = 0.016), higher average glucose levels (P = 0.002) and less time-in-range (P = 0.005), but not more hypoglycemia alarms. The optimal alarm threshold for < 1% of time in hypoglycemia was 75 mg/dL. Lower glucose thresholds for hyperglycemia alarms (ie, ≤ 205 mg/dL vs > 205 mg/dL) were related to lower average glucose levels and 42% and 61% less time with glucose > 250 and > 320 mg/dL (P = 0.020, P = 0.016, P = 0.007, respectively), without more hypoglycemia. Lower alarm thresholds were also associated with more alarms (P < 0.0001). The optimal alarm threshold for < 5% of time in hyperglycemia and hemoglobin A1c ≤ 7% was 170 mg/dL. CONCLUSIONS: Different CGM glucose thresholds for hypo/hyperglycemia alarms are associated with various hypo/hyperglycemic outcomes. Configurations to the hypo/hyperglycemia alarm thresholds could be considered as an intervention to achieve therapeutic goals.